From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #339 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Thursday, December 20 2001 Volume 05 : Number 339 Today's Subjects: ----------------- WAY OT: Wedding Pictures [bradbourne@yahoo.com (Mark)] Re: Dave Matheson's FIRST solo gig! [anna@smag.org (Anna)] Re: his point [cfegrl@yahoo.com (Cookie)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL ["Thomas Mbeki" ... > I'm also anticipating Tamara Williamson's > Christmas benefit at the Rivoli (Dec 22) with as > much excitement (if not more) than Christmas > itself. Everyone should come to this! EVERYONE! Oh yeah, man. Every year I try to make it to this, and every year I've got something to do. Hopefully I won't have crap to do :) - -anna- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 2001 18:33:04 -0800 From: cfegrl@yahoo.com (Cookie) Subject: Re: his point Nancy Wood wrote in message news:<3C18E44E.13FB0555@urmc.rochester.edu>... > "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > > > But let me put this to you. You have a large number of hostile troops > > barricaded in a basement (i.e. and underground bunker). They have an > > unknown number of weapons and ammunition, but clearly a sufficiant > > ammount for them to be shooting at and killing your troups. There are > > only one or two ways into this place and they have them heavily > > defended. Are you going to sacrifice the lives of your own troops in > > a frontal assault on that position, or are you going to hit them with > > heavy weapons and other means, like the flaming diesel fuel, which you > > can use from a position of relative safety? > > There was only 1 way into the basement. The men had retreated down into the basement when chaos > broke out. The Alliance troops on the ground notified the US and requested help. They also told > them Swann was dead - the 1st US casualty in "combat". Our response was to begin bombing the shit > out of the fortress, within hours. I question the judgement here because the accounts from > journalists on the ground sound very much like we had a knee jerk reaction to the death of 1 CIA > agent. First of all, they retreated into the basement. They were trapped. There were no hostages, > nobody was in any immediate danger. They were holed up, and not actively on the offensive at the > time we retaliated. What was the hurry? Why not wait them out? Bring in reinforcements on the > ground? Attempt a negotiated surrender of those who wanted to try to come out (although I suspect > anyone who tried to give himself up would have been killed by his zealot brothers in arms in the > basement). We could have told them to strip and come out 1 at a time with arms on their heads > thereby avoiding any hidden explosives. Why weren't they thoroughly checked in the first place? > Hell, they weren't searched AT ALL. They voluntarily laid down their guns and got into line to be > transported. What, we just assume because their commander surrendered them we should trust that > nobody had a grenade up their sleeve? It just doesn't add up. OK. This has to be the funniest thing I've read yet on this topic. My first reaction to this post was, sure, maybe you're right. We probably should have just lured them out with flowers, chocolate, and lusty women, then given them a bath and told them to not ever rebel against the United States again, swatted them on the butt and sent them back home with a care package full of McDonald's french fries and Starbucks "Morning Blend". I hate to be so snide, but this post just reaffirms the cliche that hindsight is 20/20. In reality, at the moment in question, I seriously doubt anyone even knew for *sure* that the CIA agent was dead when the bombing command was given, let alone based the attack as a retalition. Also, when random shooting starts, war "fairness" generally goes out the window in favor of self-preservation, especially in a situation like this where traditional western war "values" simply don't apply. It's not like there was a committee delegating proper procedure in situations like this. As far as I know, this was a pretty unique situation--even for military training. To quote AJ (who's merely quoting many before)...war is hell. Another fact is: military personnel are humans just like us--no matter which side they fight for. As a result of having this tragic flaw, they are also not immune to such things as fear and self-preservation reactions. I don't know what went on in that fortress, and neither does anyone else right now, except the people who were there. We'll find out the truth in 5 or 10 years, maybe. And even then, it will only be the "historical truth" which may or may not be the actual truth. Until then, it's his word against his, and I guarantee neither side would be lying. I'd like to share a bit of a bizarre observation I had in regard to this specific event. When I heard that the Taliban fighters had surrendered, I thought to myself, "What are they doing? The Northern Alliance will not tolerate prisoners. They'll kill them first." The next news article I read on this topic was that there was an "uprising", and that hundreds of Taliban prisioners had been killed. Let's just say that I had my doubts about the legitimacy about the claims that the POWs had weapons and tried to blast their way out of the fortress. My first reaction was that the Northern Alliance decided to eliminate their enemy, and then claimed they were acting in self-defense. This is a possibility as much as anything else, is it not? As always, aren't there are many sides to every story? Am I the only person here who's seen "Rashomon"? Filing my opinionated thoughts and heading for bed after a LONG day... Cookie ------------------------------ Date: 17 Dec 2001 11:13:54 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point [snip] > > > > >You know, even though I think the system could use some overhauling > > >(maybe eliminating the electoral college altogether), I basically have > > >to agree here. How many other countries could have had the election that > > >we just did, and yet still see a peaceful transition of power? I can't > > >think of many. There would have been assassinations and revolutions. I > > >think we can be proud of the fact that for the most part, Americans do > > >respect the laws regarding their governmental policies. Although it > > >ain't a perfect set-up, I think one of the main reasons that our > > >government is as strong as it is, is the fact that it was set up to be a > > >continual work in progress. It evolves as we do. (Oh yeah, that checks > > >and balances thing was a good idea, too.) > > > > I don't think that it needs to be overhauled at all. I am continually > > amazed by the foresight that our founding fathers had in crafting our > > government (well, their second attempt, at least). The day the electoral > > college is replaced will be the day that all of the sudden no presidential > > candidates cares about the interests of citizens living in Alaska, Delaware, > > Rhode Island, etc. > > I've got news for you...they don't care now. Amen sister. If I hear this bunch hooey one more time (about people not caring about the small states anymore if the electoral system goes into the dust bin where it should have been scrapped a long time ago) I'm going to throw up. > The problem I have with the system is that it's a weighted system. A vote in > California (55 electoral votes) doesn't have the same amount of weight as the > weight of someone in, say, Wyoming (3 electoral votes). A single vote in > Wyoming has much more power to turn the state over to one candidate or the > other than a single vote in California. And that's wrong. Not only that, but the electoral college *encourages* people not to vote. What is the point of voting in a state where the overwhelming majority of the state doesn't share your viewpoint? Just to register as a statistic? Why would anyone in a predominately republican/democratic state (such as Mass or Texas) vote if they know that their vote is going to count for nothing? Why should someone that doesn't carry almost any states that have any sizeable population be given the right to rule over the majority? Where is the fairness in that? Anyone who is "proud" of the fairness of the last election, obviously doesn't know the system very well and has no qualms about the supreme court electing their president and the person that had the clear majority is not in the oval office. > In fact, I'd be willing to think that if we eliminated the electoral system, > that the candidates would actually be *more* concerned with the votes in the > less-populated states because single votes do add up. For example: Rudy Perpich > was the governor of Minnesota for 3 terms and he was elected without ever > carrying the Twin Cities. That was because he campaigned nearly exclusively in > the Iron Range and rural Minnesota. The same thing could be true if the > electoral college was eliminated. Someone could actually become President > without carrying the larger states, and the way it's currently set up, that's > almost impossible to accomplish. Exactly. Did you see the democratic candidate campaign in the west (Utah, Montana, Oklahoma, etc)? No. Why? Because those states are predominately repuglican. Why "waste" valuable time campaiging in states where you are going to lose? But if the minority party in those states could help determine the election (i.e if their votes actually counted for something), it would be a heck of a lot more likely that you might see candidates showing up in the state. Can you name a presidental candidate that has campaigned in Alaska or Hawaii? > Doesn't that sound even more fair? People with equal representation in the election. Hmmm.. it seems fair. One person, one vote. Not one person, depending on where you live, no vote at all (effectively) or more than one vote or fractional vote, etc. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 01:23:11 From: "Thomas Mbeki" Subject: URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL From:Dr.Thomas Mbeki Tel/Fax#:882-164650382 South Africa Attn:President/Ceo. STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL RE: TRANSFER OF US$21.5 MILLION (TWENTY ONE MILLION, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND US DOLLARS ONLY). I know this email will reach you as a surprise, butneed not to worry as we are using the only secured and confidential medium available to seek for foreign assistance/partnership in a business transaction which is of mutual benefit. I am a member of the Government of South African Contract Award and Monitoring Committee in the Deparment of Mineral and energy(DME)Sometime ago,a contract was awarded to a foreign firm in DME by my Committee. This contract was over invoiced to the tune of US$21.5M. U. S.Dollars. This was done deliberately. The over-invoicing was a deal by my committee to benefit from the project. We now want to transfer this money which is in a suspense Account with DME into any Overseas Account which we expect you to provide for us. SHARE: - For providing the account where we shall remit the money into, you will be entitled to 30% of the money,60% will be for me andmy partners while 10% has been mapped out from the total sum to cover any expenses that may be incurred by us during the course of this transfer,both locally and international expenses. It may interest you to know that a similar transaction was carried out with one MR. PATRICE MILLER, President of Crane International Trading Corp. of 153 East 57th St., 28th floor, NY10022, TEL:(212)-308-7788 AND TELEX: 6731689. The deal was concluded and all covering documents were forwarded to MR. MILLER to authenticate the claim. Once the funds were transferred, MR. MILLER presented his Bank with all the legal documents and remitted the whole funds to another Bank Account and disappeared completely.My colleagues were shattered, as such opportunities do not come all the time.In order for us to commence the transaction i would require the following: - 1.Your company's name,address,telephone and fax numbers. 2.Your bank name,address,account and routing numbers The above information would be use to make formal applications as a matter of procedure for the release of the money and onward transfer to your account. It does not matter whether or not your company does contract projects of this nature described here. The assumption is that your company won the major contract and subcontracted it out to other companies. More often than not, big trading companies or firms of unrelated fields win major contracts and subcontracts to more specialized firms for execution of such contracts. We have strong reliable connections and contacts at the Reserve Bank of South Africa, as well as the Department of Finance and we have no doubt that all the money will be released and transferred if we get the necessary foreign partner to assist us in this deal. Therefore,when the business is successfully concluded we shall through our same connections withdraw all documents used from all the concerned Government Departments for 100% security. We are ordinary Government workers and we will not want to miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich. We want this money to be transferred to the overseas Accounts for us, before the present Government start Auditing all Federal Government owned Parastatals accounts. Please contact me immediately through my tel/fax number or email addresses whether or not you are interested in this deal. If you are not, it will enable me scout for another foreign partner to carry out this deal. Butwhere you are interested, send the required documents aforementioned herein through my confidential email addresses(thomas800@email.com)(thomas100@dubaimail.com)as time is of the essence in this business. I wait in anticipation of your fullest co-operation. Yours faithfully, Dr.Thomas Mbeki ------------------------------ Date: 18 Dec 2001 06:06:54 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: Message to Lori! Lori Martin wrote in message news:<3C1ED309.2D2422E2@xpnonline.net>... > "Chris K @*_*@" wrote: > > > Yes Lori...your tags are very offensive! I mean, > > you weren't up all night wondering if Eric could > > read your posts or not? > > > > SHAME ON YOU! > > /me cries. > > Chrissie, you are a MEANIE! Now in Eric's defense, HTML tags in news posts are annoying as hell if you don't read news using something that can interpret them. Typically, the general rule is to use the lowest common denominator (i.e. plaintext) when you're doing a general broadcast kinda thing since then everyone will be able to read your posts (no matter what program they are using to read the news). As soon as you start doing HTML, it's a slippery slope to people posting word documents (okay, maybe I'm going a bit overboard here) and only a few people being able to read your posts. So, in short. HTML bad. Plaintext good. Post in HTML, expect a few people to bitch because if I could I'd probably be using tin or some other archaic (i.e. works well, fast, without a lot of bloat) news reader that wouldn't support the posting of javascript virii or .... "wild" Bill BIll ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #339 ********************************************